The Ipswich | 2 Charlesgate West | Fenway

[DZH22]

For the billionth time this is not about the view into the park but the view from the park......

The view from the park in that direction is about to change drastically with 1 Dalton. The view from the other direction will have the Pierce dominating in the background.

As long as it doesn't interfere with the game itself (massive glare was a good example, plus wind currents) Fenway does not have a "stake" in the new construction and should butt the hell out.

 

[HalcyonEra]

The view from the park in that direction is about to change drastically with 1 Dalton. The view from the other direction will have the Pierce dominating in the background.

As long as it doesn't interfere with the game itself (massive glare was a good example, plus wind currents) Fenway does not have a "stake" in the new construction and should butt the hell out.

Other ballparks don't seem to have issues that "concern" the Sox:

 

[JumboBuc]

It's amazing to me how many times the exact same points and counter-points can be rehashed over and over again on this thread. It feels like Groundhog Day...

 

[HalcyonEra]

It's amazing to me how many times the exact same points and counter-points can be rehashed over and over again on this thread. It feels like Groundhog Day...

That's because the argument has no merit.

 

[chrisbrat]

That's because the argument has no merit.

ding ding ding! ^^^

 

[type001]

You can throw Comerica and Chase Field Phoenix in there too.

It should be the responsibility of the park owners to mitigate exterior conditions themselves from within the park, whether it is wind, glare, drones, dragons, etc..

 

[tobyjug]

Petco Park is so much nicer than Fenway. It is downtown, and that park you see beyond the outfield is a lot of fun to loaf in.

 

[stick n move]

Glare into the field is a very valid point. Just like expressed in a pic above it can be debilitating. Were not so far advanced now that we can prevent this 100%, the recently built "walkie talkie" building in London melts cars parked on the road near it from so much focused glare. There are ways to prevent it like design shape and materials and Im sure they are going to have to factor this into the equation.

 

[JumboBuc]

You can throw Comerica and Chase Field Phoenix in there too.

Huh? This is Chase Field:

Basically, Chase Field : Fenway Park :: Phoenix : Boston.

First off, most (all?) of these parks are younger than the buildings around them. I think the oldest one posted above is 80 years (!) Fenway's junior.

Also, most (all?) of these parks do not have buildings as close to them as tall as 2 Charlesgate would be to Fenway. The buildings in the backgrounds of many of these shots are more in Back Bay High Spine category as far as distance and prominence, and the Sox have no problem with those.

But most importantly, Fenway is not other parks. Saying that there's no difference between Fenway and Chase Field is like saying that there's no difference between the Chrysler Building and One Beacon Street. You know that Fenway is not like these other ballparks because it is still standing after 100+ years, while all these other parks opened in the Clinton Administration or later. If Fenway were like these parks, it would have been torn down decades ago. The only other park in the same category as Fenway is Wrigley, and you can be guaranteed that if a building like 2 Charlesgate were proposed in the same location relative to Wrigley it would hit the same opposition or worse. If you don't understand the difference go read up a bit on baseball park architecture--this is an architecture forum after all--and on Fenway's place in baseball, and American, history.

This isn't to say that 2 Charlesgate should be stopped. There's a very solid argument that the powers-that-be should hear the Red Sox' argument and then go ahead give the project their approval none-the-less. But to say that other stadiums have buildings near them so nobody should care what gets built near Fenway is ignorant and disingenuous. The relative merits of the Red Sox opposition can be debated, but that doesn't mean it has "no merit". And I have no data to base this on, but my hunch is that many more people in this city and state would side with the Red Sox on this one than with Belkin.

It should be the responsibility of the park owners to mitigate exterior conditions themselves from within the park, whether it is wind, glare, drones, dragons, etc..

Externalities are externalities, even if you don't particularly care for the party that is affected.

 

[type001]

^When the roof is open, which is about half the season.

Everyone has a right to birch and complain, including the Red Sox, but it doesn't mean it's not their reponsibility to mitigate the conditions on the field. Although, if some proposed putting a wind turbine next door, I'm sure that wouldn't fly.

 

[type001]

Btw, I am a big Red Sox fan.

 

[HalcyonEra]

Huh? This is Chase Field:

Basically, Chase Field : Fenway Park :: Phoenix : Boston.

First off, most (all?) of these parks are younger than the buildings around them. I think the oldest one posted above is 80 years (!) Fenway's junior.

Also, most (all?) of these parks do not have buildings as close to them as tall as 2 Charlesgate would be to Fenway. The buildings in the backgrounds of many of these shots are more in Back Bay High Spine category as far as distance and prominence, and the Sox have no problem with those.

But most importantly, Fenway is not other parks. Saying that there's no difference between Fenway and Chase Field is like saying that there's no difference between the Chrysler Building and One Beacon Street. You know that Fenway is not like these other ballparks because it is still standing after 100+ years, while all these other parks opened in the Clinton Administration or later. If Fenway were like these parks, it would have been torn down decades ago. The only other park in the same category as Fenway is Wrigley, and you can be guaranteed that if a building like 2 Charlesgate were proposed in the same location relative to Wrigley it would hit the same opposition or worse. If you don't understand the difference go read up a bit on baseball park architecture--this is an architecture forum after all--and on Fenway's place in baseball, and American, history.

This isn't to say that 2 Charlesgate should be stopped. There's a very solid argument that the powers-that-be should hear the Red Sox' argument and then go ahead give the project their approval none-the-less. But to say that other stadiums have buildings near them so nobody should care what gets built near Fenway is ignorant and disingenuous. The relative merits of the Red Sox opposition can be debated, but that doesn't mean it has "no merit". And I have no data to base this on, but my hunch is that many more people in this city and state would side with the Red Sox on this one than with Belkin.



Externalities are externalities, even if you don't particularly care for the party that is affected.

Go to San Diego or Cleveland. Those buildings are right on top of the stadiums.

And yes, the Sox have a ton of power in this town and will derail this project and everyone knows it.

 

[HalcyonEra]

San Diego:

Cleveland:

 

[tobyjug]

Also, most (all?) of these parks do not have buildings as close to them as tall as 2 Charlesgate would be to Fenway. The buildings in the backgrounds of many of these shots are more in Back Bay High Spine category as far as distance and prominence, and the Sox have no problem with those.

Not true of Petco. And certainly the Red Sox are familiar with the vibe:http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ark-the52-padres-red-sox-2014dec15-story.html

 

[JumboBuc]

^^ So what? Cleveland and San Diego are not Boston. And Progressive Field and Petco Park (look at those names, for God's sake!) are not Fenway Park. That's my whole point. Just because something works in one context in one city doesn't mean it should work in this context in this city. Isn't that, like, Architecture 101?

 

[type001]

^^ So what? Cleveland and San Diego are not Boston. And Progressive Field and Petco Park (look at those names, for God's sake!) are not Fenway Park. That's my whole point. Just because something works in one context in one city doesn't mean it should work in this context in this city. Isn't that, like, Architecture 101?

Yes, the cities and the ballparks are vastly different, and yes most of those newer parks came years after the core of their city's downtowns were built. But that's just it. The owners of those new parks in those other cities chose to put the parks where they are. They didn't have any problems with glare or wind, otherwise they would have built them somewhere else.

 

[odurandina]

2 Charlesgate W could go 560' and it still wouldn't matter. at least 406'.

In 50 years people will be laughing at the nimby's from the goofy 2010's.

i'm just happy, honored and thrilled about the smart development.

 

[JumboBuc]

Yes, the cities and the ballparks are vastly different, and yes most of those newer parks came years after the core of their city's downtowns were built. But that's just it. The owners of those new parks in those other cities chose to put the parks where they are. They didn't have any problems with glare or wind, otherwise they would have built them somewhere else.

I agree that glare and wind are secondary issues that can be averted with good design. The primary concern of the Sox, and the reason that they don't want the tower there, is that it will block views out of the park and loom over the outfield, altering the historic character and "look" of Fenway. And if I were in their shoes, I would feel the same way and wouldn't want the tower there either. The fact that the Indians and Padres (and others) built new stadiums near existing tall buildings does nothing to change this.

And any lip service the Sox give to traffic concerns as a result of this tower is the height of hypocracy given how many traffic issues they create.

 

[tobyjug]

^^ So what? Cleveland and San Diego are not Boston. And Progressive Field and Petco Park (look at those names, for God's sake!) are not Fenway Park. That's my whole point. Just because something works in one context in one city doesn't mean it should work in this context in this city. Isn't that, like, Architecture 101?

Merely pointing out an inaccurate statement you made concerning the distance of tall buildings from other ballparks. I assumed that you might not know. Further, no one claimed San Diego and Cleveland are Boston, so you are now creating a diversionary strawman argument.

So what? That's what.

I wish Fenway was as comfortable as Petco Park. What has been your experience there? I haven't been to the new ballpark in Cleveland, so I couldn't comment on whether it is better or worse than Fenway Park.

 

[type001]

I agree that glare and wind are secondary issues that can be averted with good design. The primary concern of the Sox, and the reason that they don't want the tower there, is that it will block views out of the park and loom over the outfield, altering the historic character and "look" of Fenway.

Good point.